Saturday, 26 March 2016

The Ten Commandments (1956)

De ti bud

Over the
Easter I have been watching ”The Ten Commandments”, Cecil B. DeMille epic movie
about the exodus of Egypt. It is entirely fitting that I should watch this in
Easter since this is the backstory of the Jewish equivalent Pessach (or
Passover), the event Jesus was attending during the events of Easter. Due to a
quirk of the Jewish calendar one out of four years the events are a month
offset and 2016 is such a year. So, in an ordinary year this would have been an
entirely fitting movie for the holiday.

As readers
of this blog will probably know my wife is Jewish and we are currently living
in Israel. That means that I have some firsthand experience on the importance
this story has on Jewish tradition. During the Seder (the premier dinner of
Pessach) the Haggadah is read aloud and that is exactly the story covered by “The
Ten Commandments”. It is a lengthy affair and the tone is not so different from
the movie.

Add to this
the role of the Exodus in Christian tradition (and probably also Islamic) and
we are talking a big culture defining story.

The
producers of “The Ten Commandments” (which includes Cecil B. DeMille himself)
seemed well aware of this and as a result poured enormous resources into it.
With a budget of a staggering 13 million dollars it features sets not seen
since Griffith “Intolerance” and a cast to rival any contender, even by today’s
standards. Technically this is a masterpiece and the format is “Gone With the
Wind” grand. Somewhere between the lavishness of the production and the subject
matter it managed to become one of the greatest box office hits in movie
history, only exceeded by a handful of movies, depending on how you calculate
it.

Watching
it, especially with unreligious eyes, there is a strange dichotomy in the
production. There is no denying the grandness of the spectacle, but the
direction and to some extent the story is strangely primitive. Most scenes use
a very static camera, the scenes are tableau-like stages and in most scenes only
the one who talks is moving. Nobody talks at the same time and everybody
proclaims rather than just talk. In this sense “The Ten Commandments” looks
more like theater than a movie and it gives the movie a very artificial feel. I
found myself often laughing from scenes that were definitely not meant to be
funny, but was rendered so by this odd style. The schism between advanced sets
and primitive direction is most likely a result of DeMille himself. He was one
of the great pioneers of the moving picture and much of what he did was back in
the silent era. I take it as a hint of his inability to adapt to the
development of movies that this is the only one of his movies that made it to
the list. Based on directional skill alone it does not deserve its place.

The other
problem, that of the story, may relate more to the subject matter and how this
is more of a legend than a historic account. As everything religious this is a
story that seeks to teach its audience lessons of life and morality. The
characters are iconic and they do not need to have normal human traits. Add to
this the obvious political or missionary intents of DeMille and the symbolism
becomes far more important than naturalism. From my point of view however I
find it hugely annoying when people act illogically or outright stupid in order
to make a religious or political point. Obviously a lot of the script is written
up front, but with the liberty given a movie rendition I am surprised at some
of the choices made. This is most pronounced with the Moses character himself,
played by Charlton Heston. He is some sort of a genius, accomplishing
monumental tasks, yet he seems to make very odd decisions at critical points. The
most grotesque being his decision to work the mud pits as a slave when he
realizes he is born of a Hebrew mother. If he is suddenly so upset about the
slavery issue, why not take the throne practically given to him and just
declare their release? What exactly does he think he can achieve from the mud
pits? If the objective is to give him integrity it is clearly at the expense of
brains.

Yul Brynner’s
Rameses is much neater cut, but he is also a victim of odd decisions. I can
understand that he wants to avoid creating a martyr, but Moses, the leader of
the rebellion, can come and go at his court at will and only when it is too
late does Rameses try to restrain him. Any normal tyrant would have him in
irons the moment he made a public presence.

The movie
is full of smaller and larger examples of these oddities and they do have the
effect of distancing me from the characters. That I on a personal level does
not buy into the religious elements does not really help me a lot either and there
is a lot to stomach. On the other hand if you want to understand particularly
Jewish culture this is an excellent guidebook, especially on the diaspora and
the sense of nation.

With a
massive cast like this however it cannot go entirely wrong. Yul Brynner is pretty
awesome and so is Edward G. Robinson as the voice of failure and betrayal among
the Israelites. These two are in fact so good that there were times I was
rooting for the bad guys rather than the good. Anne Baxter as Nefretiri is also
a character far more developed and with more human traits with her equivalents
on the Hebrew side, Sephora (Yvonnne De Carlo) and Lilia (Debra Paget). She is
also the voice of reason and common sense that challenges Moses and has the
unfortunate effect of making Moses look like something in between an idiot and
a mad zealot.

In fairness
I should mention that many of the problems pointed out are if not resolved then
at least taking backseat in the second half of the movie where the spectacle
takes over and dazzles even a hardened viewer like myself. The night of the
destroyer and the crossing of the Red Sea are both so spectacularly done that
they are in fact worth the entire movie.

“The Ten Commandments”
is a movie that is both toe-cringing and exciting, educational and religious
indoctrination. It is not a movie to be rated by normal standards and at the
end of the day probably a movie more to be respected than liked. As an end to
1956 I can definitely say that the year goes out with a bang.

Congratulations on finishing 1956! Still not exactly looking forward to The Ten Commandments. Charleton Heston does nothing for me. Neither does De Mille. He's more interesting in the pre-Code days when he packed his bible with sin and debauchery. Try Sign of the Cross some time!

Thank you, Bea, I am looking so much forward to 1957.When I think for Charlton Heston I think mostly of what he has become rather than what he was. 56 is still early in his career and I suspect I will get to see a lot more of him. DeMille I have almost entirely missed simply because of his absense from the List. Could be a good idea to visit Sign of the Cross.

As a fellow non-religious person, I tend to agree with this assessment completely. This is all about spectacle for me, and while I do own a copy of it (it's the three-disc set; looks great on my shelf), it's not one I plan to spend a great deal of time with in the future.

I think if I were to see it again I would stick to the second half and just skip the first. That would provide most of the spectacle and less of the excrutiating elements. But then again, there are so many movies I would rather watch.

Great selection for Easter viewing. This year the Danish TV channels have no clue! I was a tad nervous as the other Yul Brynner performances I had seen were quite wooden. Thankfully he was convincing in the role of Ramses. I reviewed the film a few months ago, and while I agree the grandiose dialogue is a little comical at times, I still thought it was an enjoyable epic. For me, the timeless lessons in the Moses story have to do with self-sacrifice and oppression of slaves.

I will check out your review, Chris. It does sound like you liked this one better than I did, but I do admit it is a grand spectacle.I am new to Yul Brynner, this is the first of his movies I have watched. To me he made a good impression, but I suppose that is not standard fare.God Påske.

Disclaimer on spoilers

If you have not seen these movies yet you may want to skip out on reading these commentaries. I am rarely holding back from revealing details from the movies that a proper review would hide under a spoiler tag. The reason is that these are not really reviews, but just my comments on the movies and some of the details which are most interesting to comment on are exactly the parts which will spoil the surprise if you have not seen it yet. So be warned.

About Me

In 2010 I started the project of gathering and seeing the 1001 movies listed in "1001 movies to see before you die". This is a blog to allow me to comment on them.
I am married with a son and geologist by training. Since 99 I have worked as a wind engineer at EMD (www.emd.dk) where I mostly work with wind studies and noise.